header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 November 2007 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

7 May 2009

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Neil Parpworth presents the case for fixed-term Parliaments

The Parliament Act 1911 provides that the life of a Westminster Parliament is limited to five years. In effect, therefore, in the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying an extension, there must be a general election within five years of the previous election. Thus, unlike the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Westminster Parliament does not sit for fixed terms. A general election may be called as and when the prime minister of the day desires, provided that the monarch agrees that Parliament be dissolved using her power under the royal prerogative. The political advantage which accrues to the party in government is therefore obvious and considerable.

POWER TO DISSOLVE PARLIAMENT

Had Gordon Brown asked the Queen to grant a dissolution last month, it is certain that she would have done as she was bid. To justify an election, Brown might have argued that, as a relatively new prime minister, it was important that his government obtained its own mandate from the electorate rather

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll